Court Recognizes False Claim of Martial Law Troops' Death by Armored Vehicle During 5·18 Protest

Partial Victory in 2nd Trial Over 'Jeon Du-hwan Memoirs'... Partial Citation Ban and 70 Million KRW Compensation

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] The court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs in the civil appeal case related to former President Jeon Du-hwan's memoir.

The 2nd Civil Division of the Gwangju High Court (Chief Judge Choi In-gyu) on the 14th at 2 p.m. delivered a partial victory to four 5·18-related organizations and the bereaved family of the late Father Jo Bi-o, represented by Father Jo Young-dae, in the appeal lawsuit against former President Jeon and his son Jeon Jae-guk, seeking prohibition of publication and distribution of the memoir and claiming damages.

The court ordered Jeon’s son to prohibit the publication and distribution of the memoir unless certain expressions were deleted.

It also ordered the four 5·18 organizations to be compensated 11 million KRW each and Father Jo to be compensated 7.5 million KRW.

Lee Soon-ja, the spouse and litigation successor of the deceased former President Jeon, was ordered to pay 4 million KRW each to the four organizations and 2.5 million KRW to Father Jo.

The key issue in this lawsuit was whether many expressions related to the 5·18 Democratization Movement in the memoir constituted historical distortion and defamation of related parties.

All 51 expressions in the memoir, including the theory of North Korean military involvement, denial of helicopter gunfire by martial law troops, deaths of martial law soldiers caused by protestors’ armored vehicles, and secret burial of citizens, were recognized as defamation based on false facts.

Among these expressions, the memoir’s description that a martial law soldier died after being hit by a "protestors’ armored vehicle" was recognized as false for the first time in this appeal trial.

Pastor Lee Kyung-nam, who was assigned to the martial law troops at the time, testified in court with specific details that the soldier died after being hit by a "martial law armored vehicle," not by citizen soldiers, lending credibility to this claim.

In contrast, some martial law officers who gave opposing testimonies were found less credible due to their relatively unfavorable witness positions, some contradictions in their statements, and their interest in avoiding criminal punishment.

The court judged that the description related to the armed protestors’ attack on Gwangju Prison lacked sufficient proof of falsehood, differing from the first trial.

This was because the Supreme Court ruled that the military’s return fire against the protestors’ gunfire toward Gwangju Prison was a justifiable act, and the fact that a firefight occurred between both sides cannot be overturned.

The plaintiffs argue that the armed protestors did not intend to attack the prison but only retaliated because martial law troops fired at vehicles carrying citizens traveling on the outskirts of the city.

The court stated, "Jeon Du-hwan is the mastermind who received a confirmed life sentence for the May 17 military coup, the May 18-related rebellion, and murder with the purpose of rebellion."

Furthermore, "Nevertheless, through this memoir, he completely denies his responsibility for parts legally and historically condemned, acts as if he is unfairly bearing a cross as a victim, and criticizes the democratization movement forces who are the actual victims."

It added, "Such actions harm national unity and cause social unrest, which is highly condemnable. The false statements about the meaning of the 5·18 Democratization Movement in the memoir have resulted in damage to the honor, credibility, and social evaluation of the 5·18 organizations."

It also emphasized, "It has been known that a martial law soldier died due to an armored vehicle of the citizen resistance forces, which has been used as a pretext for the so-called 'self-defense rights activation theory' by Jeon Du-hwan and other new military forces. Through meticulous argumentation, the court ruling has revealed for the first time that this is false."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.